Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 1990.
The petitioners/appellants were tried for the murder of Muhammad Hanif and vide his judgment, dated 13-2-1989, a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, convicting them under section 302/34, P.P.C., sentenced them to imprisonment for life and some fine each, besides directing them to pay compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story was that a few days prior to the occurrence some quarrel took place between the parties and the petitioners-appellants on 20-5-1989 at about 6-45 p.m. Armed with guns attacked Muhammad Hanif (deceased) as a result of which he was fatally injured and died on the spot.
3. On the completion of prosecution evidence, Muhammad Khan petitioner-appellant pleaded alibi, while Muhammad Riaz petitioner-appellant admitted having fired a shot at the deceased in defence of his own person and property.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners-appellants that there was only one pellet injury on the head of the deceased and Muhammad Riaz petitioner---appellant accepted its responsibility in the circumstances stated by him in the statement recorded under sections 342 and 340, Cr.P.C.
According to the learned counsel, Muhammad Khan petitioner-appellant was falely implicated in this case as no overt act, excepting general allegation of his having also fired a shot alongwith his brother, was attributed to him.
5. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that statutory period under section 426(1-C), Cr.P.C. Has not yet expired and Muhammad Khan petitioner-appellant being equally responsible for the murder of Muhammad Hanif in the context of vicarious liability, he is not entitled to the grant bf bail.
6. It appears that a period of about a year and quite a few months has elapsed to the conviction and detention of the appellants but since the statutory period has not yet completed, they cannot be granted bail on this ground. There was only one pellet injury on the head of the deceased, which had proved fatal. Muhammad Riaz accepted its responsibility and pleaded self-defence. It is yet to be seen as to how far he was justified in the plea taken up by him. Muhammad Khan petitioner- appellant was assigned a general role of ineffective firing at the complainant party. He is, therefore, granted bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
7. The application of Muhammad Riaz petitioner-appellant is, however, dismissed.